Topic: The PATIENTS Act and Obamacare

[Pandora]

Several Republicans have re-introduced the PATIENTS Act: The Preserving Access to Targeted, Individualized, and Effective New Treatments and Services (PATIENTS) Act of 2011.

It has particular relevance given the threat ObamaCare presents to America's health care system. More details below via an email.

Senator Jon Kyl and a group of Senators – including Sens. Mitch McConnell (Ky.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) have introduced critical legislation that seeks to protect the doctor and patient relationship from the oncoming onslaught of ObamaCare.

Known as the PATIENTS Act, the bill works to protect the individualized relationship between doctors and patients ensuring that new government rules and mandates that put a premium on cost never interfere with the practice of quality medicine.

To better understand how that will happen if ObamaCare is not defunded or repealed, it is critical to understand the nature of “comparative effectiveness research.”  In order to save money for the cost of socialist health care regimes, bureaucrats often play the “comparative effectiveness research” card to mandate that doctors provide inferior care and treatment that often does not work.

These studies for which there is nearly a billion dollars worth of funding in the ObamaCare bill become the basis of bureaucratic mandates that substitute the government’s judgment for that of a doctor.  For instance, if a government study says that drug X is as effective as drug Y (which is cheaper), the government will often begin to deny coverage for drug X forcing the doctor to use drug Y.  In some instances, patients only respond to drug X.  Doctors and patients should never be forced to take drugs that don’t work.  Doctor’s need to be able to make these decisions without interference from a bureaucrat.  That is what the Kyl bill seeks.

This is not a theoretical argument any longer.  The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the National Institute of Health has been conducting a study of the drugs Avastin and Lucentis.  Lucentis is and FDA approved drug that is highly effective is stopping macular degeneration – a disease of the eye.  The drug was tested and found safe to inject into the eye and patients report miraculous results.  Avastin, on the other hand, was never approved for such a purpose.  While effective in extending the life of cancer patients, it was never approved for eye injections.  But because Avastin is cheaper than Lucentis, the NIH has been studying whether the drug should be substituted for Lucentis for “off-label” use.

This effort appears to have hit a roadblock.  A Johns Hopkins University Study seems to indicate the dangers of such a scheme.  The Journal reports that using Avastin for this non- approved purpose showed an 11% higher risk in overall mortality and a 57% higher risk of hemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident. "Data from this Medicare claims analysis suggest differences in the safety profile of Avastin versus Lucentis," the researchers concluded.

Quality, safety and effectiveness are paramount concerns over cost and those decisions are best made on the front line of the health care battle – in the doctor’s office.  Senator Kyl and his supporters understand this implicitly and hopefully the rest of the Congress will come to their senses soon.

[LadyVirginia]

My mom has had this problem twice--where the insurance co said she didn't need what the doctor ordered. I can imagine it would be even worse with O-care because at least with the insurance co the doc was able to talk sense into them. (She was recently told she didn't need two daily doses of her med a day--just one daily dose of double the dosage--only that doesn't work for her--fortunately she was able to still get what she needs)

[charlesoakwood]

...it is critical to understand the nature of “comparative effectiveness research.” In order to save money for the cost of socialist health care regimes, bureaucrats often play the “comparative effectiveness research” card to mandate that doctors provide inferior care and treatment that often does not work.

This is a lynchpin of ObamaCare.  Comparative effectiveness is to be applied across the board and it will be a killer.   

Marc Siegel MD
What To Expect From ObamaCare In 2011  Marc Siegel, 01.04.11, 06:00 AM EST   -When it comes to government vision, theory and fact aren't always the same.

Smoke?

FNC has the most disassociated freaking website search it drives me nutz I don't go there but SOMEWHERE THERE is a very good clip of Doctor Siegel explaining comparative effictiveness.

 

[Pandora]

Imuran is an off-label treatment for Crohn's, originally intended for arthritis, which works when Remicaid, also an arthritis relief drug, doesn't do the trick.

I'm stocking up.

They're going to push those of us who have nothing left to lose into seeing the odds are evened.

[BMG]

LINK

That focus on the politics and strategy clearly benefited Republicans since much of the story during the health care fight was of a Democratic party divided between its liberal base, who wanted a broader bill, and its more pragmatic center that preferred a bill that could be passed.

In fact, there were more than twice as many mentions of “more government involvement” than of “insuring pre-existing conditions”, which has long been one of the Obama Administration’s signature talking points in support of the law.

“Opponents of the reform won the so-called ‘messaging war’ in the coverage,” according to a Pew memo analyzing the results.

Amazing. So, what I'm getting from this article (apparently supported by evidence from the left-leaning - or rather completely in the tank for the left - PEW 'research center', is that the vast right-wing media bias has scuttled Obamacare...

...it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the simple fact that Obamacare is a gross, unabashed and shameless grab by the government for the freedoms of the citizenry of the US. Oh no, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with that...

...a$$clowns...

So they're laying the groundwork for their case that the media is right-leaning (as they have been attempting to do for some time now anyway). Whatever makes their minions sleep well at night I guess.

[Libertas]

The dangers of Big Government and its bloated bureaucracies and overfed unions highlighted in one nice neat example...time to trim all the fat with chainsaws and flamethrowers!

[warpmine]

Certainly, MSNBC  is rightwing.